Electrolux Home Prod v. Whitesell Corp

Filing 1063

ORDER denying 1014 Motion to Compel responses to discovery. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 9/24/2018. (pts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

WHITESELL CORPORATION,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*
*

V.

*

CV 103-050

•k

ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS,

*

INC., HUSQVARNA, A.B., and

*

HUSQVARNA OUTDOOR PRODUCTS,
INC.,

*
*
*

Defendants.

*

ORDER

Presently
Corporation's

certain

before

the

(^'Whitesell")

discovery

Court
motion

propounded

Products, Inc. ("EHP").

is

to

to

Plaintiff
compel

Defendant

Whitesell

responses

Electrolux

to

Home

The parties have fully briefed the

matter, and the Court resolves it as follows.

Whitesell intends to use the discovery at issue to obtain
damages

information

parties'

Settlement

related

to

Memorandum

a
of

particular

term

in

2003.

the

time

At

the
of

executing the Settlement Memorandum, the parties had agreed to

transition "Brunner and/or wireform parts" to Whitesell.

The

parts were to be fully transitioned to Whitesell by December

31, 2003.
follows:

The Settlement Memorandum provided, however, as

To

the

extent

that

EHP

does

not

transition

the

supply of all Brunner and wireform parts to
Whitesell, EHP agrees to transition additional
mutually agreed upon parts for Whitesell to supply
in an amount which creates gross purchases . . .
equal to the calendar year 2002 purchase value of
the Brunner and wireform parts not transitioned
(hereafter, "substitute parts")[.] . . . Any
shortfall in the annual purchase volume of Brunner
and wireform part(s) that are actually to be
purchased from Whitesell as compared to the prior
2002 annual purchase volume . . . of Brunner and
wireform parts shall be made up of mutually agreed
substitute parts and added to Exhibit "B-1."
(See

Doc.

No.

(hereinafter

provision").)

568,

Ex.

referred

In

other

2,

to

Settlement

as

words,

the

the

Memorandum

"substitute

Settlement

^

3

revenue

Memorandum

provided that EHP could either transition to Whitesell (i) all
Brunner and wireform parts by December 31, 2003; or (ii) other
parts in an amount equal to the 2002 purchase value of the
non-transitioned Brunner and wireform parts.

It is undisputed that EHP did not fully transition all
Brunner and wireform parts by December 31, 2003.

It is also

undisputed that EHP did not provide substitute revenue.
Whitesell

contends

that

it

is

entitled

to

Thus,

discovery

to

determine the value of EHP's 2002 purchases of Brunner and
wireform parts from other suppliers.

To that end, Whitesell

propounded the following interrogatories to EHP:
Interrogatory No. 1: Please state the calendar year 2002
purchase value of all Sommer Metal Craft, SMC, and Matrix
parts (including part number, quantity purchased, price
paid, and surcharges) purchased or used by, for, or at

all Electrolux indoor and outdoor divisions.^

Interrogatory No. 2: Please separately state the calendar
year 2002 purchase value of all wireform parts (including
part number, quantity purchased, price paid, and
surcharges) purchased or used by, for, or at all of
Electrolux indoor and outdoor divisions for each of the

following vendors: Northern Wire, Argo, 3G Industries,
Wiremaid,

Erisco,

Wiretech,

Nashville

Wire

Products,

Mitchell Bissell, Fansteel, and Dubose Strapping Inc.^
In response to Whitesell's motion to compel, EHP contends
that it "has already provided full and accurate responses to

these requests."^

(EHP's Resp. in Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. to

Compel, Doc. No. 1020, at 4.)
its

responses

emphasizes

with

that

it

certain
is

"not

information" to these requests.
original).)

In

reply,

Moreover, while EHP prefaced
relevancy

objections,

withholding

any

EHP

responsive

(Id. at 5 n.2 (emphasis in

Whitesell

refuses

to

take

this

representation at face value, demanding a verification that

^

This interrogatory was posed in Whitesell's Fifth Set

of Interrogatories.
The concomitant request to produce,
appearing in Whitesell's Eleventh Request for Production of
Documents, asks EHP to provide all supporting documents.

^

This interrogatory was also posed in Whitesell's Fifth

Set of Interrogatories. The concomitant request to produce,
also appearing in Whitesell's Eleventh Request for Production
of Documents, asks EHP to provide all supporting documents.

^

EHP represents that it had no purchase data for 12 of

the 13 vendors listed in these discovery requests.
With
respect to the remaining vendor. Matrix Wire, Inc., EHP
purchased only a single part. Part No. 24035002, in 2002.
Despite the provision of this information, EHP opposes the
award of any damages to Whitesell involving this part.
The
Court leaves this dispute for another day.

EHP is not withholding any additional responsive information.
(Pl.'s Reply, Doc. No. 1022, at 10.)

The Court has reviewed the parties'
responses to these discovery requests.

briefs and EHP's

The Court is satisfied

that EHP has responded in full and is not withholding any
responsive information based upon its prefatory objections.
For this reason, Whitesell's motion to compel responses to
Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2 in its Fifth Interrogatories to EHP
and to Requests to Produce Nos. 1 and 2 in its Eighth Request
for Production to EHP is denied.

The other discovery request at issue is the following
interrogatory from Whitesell to EHP:
Interrogatory No. 4: Identify each vendor from which you
purchased wireform parts, for indoor or outdoor use, from
2002 through 2010 and, for each year, the total amount

you paid to each vendor for those parts each year."
EHP objected on the basis that ''wireform parts" do not fall
into one of the four enforceable part categories identified

through this Court's Order of October 14, 2008.
The

Court

agrees

with

EHP.

In

determining

which

categories of parts did not suffer from a lack of specificity,
the Court identified "(1) all parts Whitesell was supplying to
EHP

as

of

the

date

of

the

Settlement

Agreement; (2)

all

Springfield Division parts which were being supplied by Bamal

"

This interrogatory was posed in Whitesell's Sixth Set

of Interrogatories.

as of January 1, 2003; and (3) the ^Brunner' parts."
of Oct. 14, 2008, at 22-23.)

(Order

Thus, the Court considered the

Brunner and wireform parts addressed in the substitute revenue
provision of the Settlement Memorandum.

Indeed, the Court

next stated that the "amorphous category of [wireform parts
is] too uncertain for the Court to enforce."
The

term

"wireform"

lacks

"a

stable

(Id. at 23.)

definition

either

specified by the parties, understood by the industry, or able
to be confirmed by factual evidence."

(Id.)

Simply stated,

"wireform parts" is not an enforceable category in and of
itself.

Unless a "wireform part" falls within one of the four

enforceable

categories,

it

is

not

part

of

the

damages

equation.^
The Court notes the parties' disagreement, and proffered

^

Whitesell argues that the substitute revenue provision

does not create an obligation to transition wireform parts to
Whitesell; rather, it obligates EHP to provide substitute
revenue instead.

Whitesell claims that the Court has never

relieved EHP of this obligation.
It is the Court's view,
however, that if EHP is not obligated to transition the vague
category of wireform parts based upon the October 14, 2008
Order, it is not obligated to provide substitute revenue
either. This does not render the substitute revenue provision
unenforceable with respect to Brunner parts.
Moreover,
certain wireform parts, particularly those supplied by Matrix
Wire, Inc., were apparently the subject of transition efforts
between Husqvarna Outdoor Products, Inc. and Whitesell.
In
this way, wireform parts are included in this litigation and
relevant discovery has been provided by Husqvarna. (See EHP's
Resp. in Opp'n to PI.'s Mot. to Compel, at 6 n.5; EHP's Resp.
and Obj. to PI.'s Eleventh RFPs, Resp, No. 1, Doc. No. 101411; Order of June 8, 2011, Doc. No. 429, at 5 n.8; Order of
Mar. 9, 2016, Doc. No. 785, at 3 n.3.)

evidence, over whether ^"wireform" is intended to encompass
indoor

and

outdoor

products

or

whether

a

part

can

be

considered a "wireform" if it contains plastic and/or glass.
This

disagreement

proves

the

Court's

point

in

excluding

wireforms from the enforceable part categories in the first
place.
In conclusion, Whitesell's motion to compel responses to

its interrogatory seeking information relative to the vague
and

unenforceable

category

of

''wireform

parts,"

here

Interrogatory No. 4 in its Sixth Set of Interrogatories to
EHP, is denied.

Upon

the

foregoing,

Whitesell's

motion

responses to discovery (doc. no. 1014) is DENIED.

ORDER ENTERED

at Augusta,

Georgia,

this

to

compel
.

of

September, 2018.

J.

HALIf, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITE/ STATES DISTRICT COURT
lERN

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA